Anthropocentrism vs Biocentrism

[Sentinel]

I've edited this post some avoid confusion:

Wikipedia definitions:

Anthropocentrism (Greek άνθρωπος, anthropos, human being, κέντρον, kentron, "center") is the idea that, for humans, humans must be the central concern, and that humanity must judge all things accordingly: Anthropos (the term, like “human”, refers to both men and women) must be considered, looked after and cared for, above all other real or imaginary beings. Anthropocentrism is a secular, rational and realistic perspective that is closely related to humanism.

Link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropocentrism)

Biocentrism is a term that has several meanings but is most commonly defined as the belief that all forms of life are equally valuable and humanity is not the center of existence. Biocentric positions generally advocate a focus of the well-being of all life in the consideration of ecological, political, and economic issues.

Biocentrism has been contrasted to anthropocentrism, which is the belief that human beings and human society are, or should be, the central focus of existence.

Link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biocentrism)

So, let's see where we stand, shall we? ;)

Please elaborate on and clarify your choice. There are two choices, called 'leaning towards'. They could mean that one is antropocenric/biocentric when it comes to certain issues -- actually they could mean anything! Also, one can always null his/her vote if one doesn't feel any option fits them, or disagree with how the concepts of anthropocentrism and biocentrism are presented and/or relate to each other.. This is a poll asking for opinions, and as long as people explain theirs it has filled itr's purpose.

Also, please remain civil and polite! I know that this is an issue involving a lot of emotions for many, but I'm confident we can discuss this without resorting to flaming. Let's criticise each other's opinions and positions rationally. I will mercilessly trash posts containing direct personal attacks and name calling (you're a reactionary piece of shit, you're an idiot etc).

***

I pick option 1 without a seconds hesitation myself -- I'm an anthropocentric communist and see the progress, as in improvement and development, of human society and human living standards as the single most important issue worth fighting for in this world. In my opinion we should let nothing get in it's way.

I refuse to tolerate that people, human beings, remain in unnecessary misery anywhere on earth because someone elses morals, ethics or religion. All such are completely secondary and irrelevant to me when the wellbeing and improvement of our species is in question. Progress of society, science and technology on a global level is crucial if we are to achieve the highest of goals as I see it: maximal wellbeing, minimal suffering and continued development of mankind.

Whether it's achievement requires the destruction of another species, the alteration of the planet into unrecogniseable, nothing really matters as long as the human species thrives and progresses, living standards and life expectancy are elevated, and obsolete and opressive social models are banished from the face of the earth.

I duly hope that this position of mine isn't interpreted as ignorance about the environment, because it's actually quite far from that. I see sustainable development as absolutely crucial, because I recognise the danger pollution, overexploitation and waste of resources poses for human survival on this planet. The human species has become incredibly powerful, as has our potential inpact on the environment. Extreme caution and carefulness is required as we develop further from this point -- or we might destroy all life on earth, and thus ourselves.

Incidentally, as I see it, it being a huge environmental threat is one of the main reasons we must overthrow the capitalist system as soon as possible -- the survival of mankind might depend on it in a not too distant future.

[apathy maybe]

I haven't "voted" yet, but I will. First, a post.

I think that your post is a good and clear one. I'm not so clear that you will be able to keep the rest of the thread the same. I am unashamedly an environmentalist, I think that we should look after the environment, attempt to prevent species extinctions and similar. Humans have had the biggest impact on the Earth, and the natural environment of any other animal. From the Wikipedia article on Extinctions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinctions)

Prior to the dispersion of humans across the earth, extinction generally occurred at a continuous low rate, mass extinctions being relatively rare events. Starting approximately 100,000 years ago, and coinciding with an increase in the numbers and range of humans, species extinctions have increased to a rate unprecedented since the Cretaceous-Tertiary extinction event. This is known as the Holocene extinction event and is at least the sixth such extinction event. Some experts have estimated that up to half of presently existing species may become extinct by 2100.My bold.

Of course, humans are animals, and are part of the environment. I am not of the opinion that we should try and have as many humans as possible, I think that humans would not be worse of if gradually the population shrank to under a billion. In fact, I think that the Earth is over populated with humans, despite my opinion that 6 billion humans can all live with a relatively high sustainable standard of living.

[Jazzratt]

I'm firmly, unconditionally and unapologetically anthropocentric. There is no excuse not to be really.

There is a perception, especially among biocentrist that being anthropocentric is somehow anti environmental, this is a view which of course ignores the fact that for a world acceptable to anthropocentrics we need a breathable atmosphere and a way of producing lots of energy.

I am human and I must advance my species.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

Anthropocentrism here :D

[apathy maybe]

A question to the anthropocentrics, why must we advance our species? What is so special about it? Why do you care? I can understand caring about pain, or similar, but the mere existence of the species is not something to care about, is it?

[BurnTheOliveTree]

I lean towards anthropocentrism.

My "Morality" if you could call it that, is utilitarian. Humans, as the most advanced species we're aware of, have the most capacity for pleasure and pain.

Therefore anthropocentrism makes sense. You should always, always kill 20 pigs to save a human, for example. I know that sounds rather too obvious to state, but there are those who disagree.

And I would happily wipe out every other species on the planet, earth itself, whatever, if it would save the human race from being destroyed somehow. This hypothetical is very unlikely, of course, but I would do it without hesitating, which I suppose means I'm at least vaguely anthropocentrist.

At the same time, unconditional anthropocentrism as I understand it leads logically to a real ethical vacuum. (I know, I know, morality is bullshit, I'm an idealist, blah blah blah)

I'll refer back again to a conversation I had with Dr. Rosenpenis, who defended Cat Burning, which was a popular past time in 18th Century (I think) Paris. They would lower a stray cats body onto bonfire, slowly, so that they could laugh when it screamed. They'd watch until the wretched thing was carbonized.

At that point, fuck the entertainment of humans. If it means innocent, sentient, conscious beings suffer terribly for a bit of cheap entertainment, I am no anthropocentrist.

-Alex

[BurnTheOliveTree]

A question to the anthropocentrics, why must we advance our species? What is so special about it? Why do you care? I can understand caring about pain, or similar, but the mere existence of the species is not something to care about, is it?

Yeah, I was going to ask Jazzrat that exact question. Why is that?

-Alex

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

A question to the anthropocentrics, why must we advance our species? What is so special about it? Why do you care? I can understand caring about pain, or similar, but the mere existence of the species is not something to care about, is it?

I'm going to steal a phrase a comrade said to me on live chat.

We want the dictatorship of the proletariat, not the dictatorship of the reindeer.

back to me, people are at the top of the food chain, we can eat lower animals, or we can choose not too, but never the less, we are still at the top of the food chain.

Now that we have an industrial society, we have amazing science and technology, we philosophise and make music and poems and plays and write fiction.

We are millions of times better than other animals, the best they can do is climbing trees.

We could probably one day do amazing things like settle in outer space and build cool stuff we cant imagine. no other animal has that claim.

So, we must advance because we are not primitivists, and technology and industrialisation and modern medicine and science and all the other stuff i named has made things much better for everyone really. Even the poorest people can have vaccines these days which stops their kids die.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2007 05:01 pm

A question to the anthropocentrics, why must we advance our species? What is so special about it? Why do you care? I can understand caring about pain, or similar, but the mere existence of the species is not something to care about, is it?

Yeah, I was going to ask Jazzrat that exact question. Why is that?

-Alex
Why act in our class interest, because ultimately what is good for our species is good for us. It's a fucking tautology and should therefore be perfectly obvious.

[Lynx]

Why are these being presented as mutually exclusive?

[Rabid]

I think that we should protect our environment to an extent, though I do feel 20 pigs for a human life is completely reasonable though. Look at that situation for a minute, when pigs give birth, they have many more than one baby, and the pregnancy is much shorter than a human's (i could get more exact figures if you wanted me to, i'm just a bit lazy right now). Now, would I exterminate an entire species just for human advancement, hell no. It would ruin an entire ecosystem and affect the lives for countless creatures, including humans in the long run, so I just don't really see the point.

[Black Dagger]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2007 12:58 pm
Why are these being presented as mutually exclusive?
Because in a subforum dominated by technocrats and their sympathisers, 'you're either with us or against us' :(

Honestly, i think anyone who states that they 'unconditionally support' either side of this (false) dichotomy is painting themselves into a corner.

[Mujer Libre]

I basically agree with BGM- biocentrism (carried to reasonable levels) is in the interests of humanity, and thus anthropocentric. I'm going to have to null vote because the poll is fallacious.

[BurnTheOliveTree]

Honestly, i think anyone who states that they 'unconditionally support' either side of this (false) dichotomy is painting themselves into a corner.

Yeah, it's the "unconditional" bit that put me off.


Now, would I exterminate an entire species just for human advancement, hell no. It would ruin an entire ecosystem and affect the lives for countless creatures, including humans in the long run, so I just don't really see the point.

If this was a reference to my post, then you slightly misunderstood it. I was saying something like "Supposing the survival of humankind depended upon exterminating other species, and that we would all die if we failed to do so, I would exterminate the other species without a second thought". I wouldn't do it just for a bit of advancement, though if it was a really major one I'd have to consider it.

-Alex

[BurnTheOliveTree]

what is good for our species is good for us.

Hmm. And you carry this idea through "Unconditionally", right?

So if say, some scientists wanted to use your body to test a new coffee product, which would objectively be a pretty cool advancement for humans, and you were going to die in the process of their tests, would you be willing to go through with it?

-Alex

P.S. Sorry for another absurd hypothetical, I just want to test this principle of total loyalty to the species.

[Vargha Poralli]

I too nulled my vote and my views are same as Mujer Libre and BGM.

I really don't understand why is it a new label needed to advance a view that technology will solve all our problems ? That Industrialism has only one side and no destructive effects in the Air we breathe, Water we drink and food we eat etc ?

I am an firm environmentalist who believes that each life in the earth from grass to humans are heavily interrelated with one another. And well being of one species is crucial to the well being of the other.

And the effect of humans of the environment has two sides it had good and bad. I am all for reducing the bad sides and increasing the good side. For which i really don't think I need a label. If you want to be specific I have substantiated my views so you can label me what ever you want.

It is in the height of wishfull thinking that we don't need to care about environmental problems because we will one day colonise the space. At least until we have that capability we have to live in Earth.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

A lion attempts to eat someone. They have two choices: A) resist and deny the lion a meal (the anthropocentric choice) B) allow themselves to be eaten by a lion and thus providing a fellow creature with a meal (The biocentric choice).

It's not as false a dichotomy as some of you seem to think it is. You could also extend the above analogy to a pride of lions preying on a village, and so on.


I really don't understand why is it a new label needed to advance a view that technology will solve all our problems ? That Industrialism has only one side and no destructive effects in the Air we breathe, Water we drink and food we eat etc ?

I think we have it a hell of a lot better than the medieval or even the Victorian era - back then clean drinking water and smog-free air were not the realities that they are today. The fact that such marvellous things as smoke/smog-free air and running water that you can drink without being violently ill are not evenly distributed worldwide is an economic problem and not a technological one, in other words a fault of capitalism.

Technology may not solve each and every problem that confronts humanity, but it solves a hell of a lot - why do you think we insist on developing technology?


I am an firm environmentalist who believes that each life in the earth from grass to humans are heavily interrelated with one another. And well being of one species is crucial to the well being of the other.

I fear that you overstate the fragility of the Earth's ecosystem, which has survived for billions of years enduring earthquakes, floods, sea-level change, widespread volcanic eruption, global ice ages, warm periods, comet and asteroid impacts, to name but a few. We just need to carry on learning how to manipulate the environment for our own ends in the most self-beneficial manner. Some difficulties will crop up along the way but if history is any kind of guide then we will (even if eventually in the long run) surmount them in due time.


And the effect of humans of the environment has two sides it had good and bad. I am all for reducing the bad sides and increasing the good side. For which i really don't think I need a label. If you want to be specific I have substantiated my views so you can label me what ever you want.

What's wrong with a label when it accurately describes one's position regarding humanity's attempts to change or control the ecosystem in which it inhabits? Unless you can think of more, I can think of two basic reasons for protecting the environment:

1) For our own benefit

2) For it's own sake


It is in the height of wishfull thinking that we don't need to care about environmental problems because we will one day colonise the space. At least until we have that capability we have to live in Earth.

And finally we finish with a strawman of the basic anthropocentric position - anthropocentrism is based around human self-interest. Do you seriously think that anthropocentrists would ignore environmental problems to the point of forcing the human species to migrate off-world? Of course not, because to do so would not be in our self-interest. Colonising space does and should form part of our self-interest, but only in recognition of the fact that Earth will not always be inhabitable by humans, and not necessarily through human (in)action.

But until the point where we can easily colonise space (And afterwards as well), we should look after the environment - but in a way that makes us it's custodians rather than it's subjects.

[Comrade J]

Voted Option 1, it wasn't a difficult decision at all.

In fact, I suppose I am so anthropocentric that I am usually intolerant and hostile towards people who put animals first, and think the greatest crises in the world are stuff like whaleing, vivisection, depleting fish stocks etc, which I find quite disgusting considering the state of humanity.

The only way issues like that bother me are when it affects humanity. For instance, I think we ought to do something about over-fishing so the fish populations have time to grow, not because I give a shit about fish, but because future generations should have fish to eat. Just one example, of course there are many more important things.

[Lynx]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2007 05:13 am
A lion attempts to eat someone. They have two choices: A) resist and deny the lion a meal (the anthropocentric choice) B) allow themselves to be eaten by a lion and thus providing a fellow creature with a meal (The biocentric choice).
It's not as false a dichotomy as some of you seem to think it is. You could also extend the above analogy to a pride of lions preying on a village, and so on.
Using an absurd analogy is not at all persuasive.


What's wrong with a label when it accurately describes one's position regarding humanity's attempts to change or control the ecosystem in which it inhabits? Unless you can think of more, I can think of two basic reasons for protecting the environment:

1) For our own benefit

2) For it's own sake
That we can choose both reasons makes this a false dichotomy. That we can pursue them at the same time makes this a false debate.

[Sentinel]

Originally posted by BurnTheOliveTree+--> (BurnTheOliveTree)At the same time, unconditional anthropocentrism as I understand it leads logically to a real ethical vacuum. (I know, I know, morality is bullshit, I'm an idealist, blah blah blah)

I'll refer back again to a conversation I had with Dr. Rosenpenis, who defended Cat Burning, which was a popular past time in 18th Century (I think) Paris. They would lower a stray cats body onto bonfire, slowly, so that they could laugh when it screamed. They'd watch until the wretched thing was carbonized.

At that point, fuck the entertainment of humans. If it means innocent, sentient, conscious beings suffer terribly for a bit of cheap entertainment, I am no anthropocentrist.[/b]

That's not an example unconditional anthropocentrism, but vileness and cruelty. Most anthropocentrics are not at all ignorant to the suffering of animals, I'm not for one. I think we should minimise it to the degree that it's at all possible, without interfering with human wellbeing and progress.

Anthropocentric doesn't mean someone who doesn't care about other species, or someone who enjoys torturing animals. :o

It means someone who puts the benefit and advancement of mankind above all in a situation where a choice has to be made. Very much like in the example you made in the first part of your post, although it doesn't have to be as dramatic as a matter of preventing the destruction of mankind, but say conducting vivisection in order to discover a new medicine etc.


Originally posted by bleeding gums [email protected]
Because in a subforum dominated by technocrats and their sympathisers, 'you're either with us or against us'

I honestly thought you knew the meaning of ';)', ie that 'which side are you on' wasn't meant to be taken literally. Most people do seem to either take an basically anthropocentric or biocentric approach, but I do recognise it's not an entirely black and white issue -- that's why I added the leaning towards options and asked to elaborate what people meant with them. In my opinion this is an issue where people should have an opinion. Note, in my opinion, If someone disagrees they're perfectly entitled to -- that's why I started this thread, to have a debate.

So, could you please contribute to that debate instead of just throwing around your favorite buzzword 'technocrat' in 'witty' one or two line posts? Technocracy is totally irrelevant to this discussion, as it really isn't synonymous with anthropocentrism or being pro-technology. I'm, for instance, first and foremost an anarcho-syndicalist but do find energy accounting an interesting option for a moneyless society -- i could thus be referred to as a technocracy sympathiser.

But how on earth is that relevant here..?


Mujer Libre
biocentrism (carried to reasonable levels) is in the interests of humanity, and thus anthropocentric. I'm going to have to null vote because the poll is fallacious.

Could you elaborate on this? How is thinking that all life is equally valuable more beneficial for humanity than considering human life and wellbeing more valuable than that of other species? And how can they be the same, clearly we are often put to a situation where we have to harm other species in order to decrease human suffering, which is contradictory to (at least unconditional) biocentrism?

Also, if you think biocentrism is in the interest of humanity, why didn't you vote for it? :huh:

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2007 08:29 am

what is good for our species is good for us.

Hmm. And you carry this idea through "Unconditionally", right?

So if say, some scientists wanted to use your body to test a new coffee product, which would objectively be a pretty cool advancement for humans, and you were going to die in the process of their tests, would you be willing to go through with it?
No, and I'm fairly sure you don't really understand what the advancement of a species entails. It does not entail throwing away the lives of that species for relatively minor gains. That's a strawman of the highest order.

Still if the advance was more major and the project had already been tested extensively on animals I'd be fine risking my life for it. I just wouldn't foolishly throw it away.

[Vanguard1917]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2007 09:13 am

I really don't understand why is it a new label needed to advance a view that technology will solve all our problems ? That Industrialism has only one side and no destructive effects in the Air we breathe, Water we drink and food we eat etc ?

I think we have it a hell of a lot better than the medieval or even the Victorian era - back then clean drinking water and smog-free air were not the realities that they are today. The fact that such marvellous things as smoke/smog-free air and running water that you can drink without being violently ill are not evenly distributed worldwide is an economic problem and not a technological one, in other words a fault of capitalism.

Technology may not solve each and every problem that confronts humanity, but it solves a hell of a lot - why do you think we insist on developing technology?


I am an firm environmentalist who believes that each life in the earth from grass to humans are heavily interrelated with one another. And well being of one species is crucial to the well being of the other.

I fear that you overstate the fragility of the Earth's ecosystem, which has survived for billions of years enduring earthquakes, floods, sea-level change, widespread volcanic eruption, global ice ages, warm periods, comet and asteroid impacts, to name but a few. We just need to carry on learning how to manipulate the environment for our own ends in the most self-beneficial manner. Some difficulties will crop up along the way but if history is any kind of guide then we will (even if eventually in the long run) surmount them in due time.
Well put.

Environmentalist do two things:

i) They overestimate natural problems and underestimate humanity's capacity to solve these problems.

ii) They ignore the fact that the earth has never before in its history been more suitable for human inhabitation than it is today, and that this is due to human ingenuity and industry.

------
I'm not sure if i like the label 'anthropocentric'. But, yes, we need to call for a human-centred outlook.

[apathy maybe]

Vanguard1917, fuck off...

Yes some environmentalists might well do those things, but by all means not all.

[Black Dagger]

Originally posted by Sentinel+--> (Sentinel)I honestly thought you knew the meaning of ';)', ie that 'which side are you on' wasn't meant to be taken literally.[/b]

It's less the poll question and more the rhetoric of the self-identified 'anthropocentrics'... 'biocentrism' (in reality im not sure if many people actually self-identity in this way) appears to be a spectre haunting the planet.


Originally posted by Sentinel+--> (Sentinel)
Most people do seem to either take an basically anthropocentric or biocentric approach[/b]

Maybe, but it's the people who wholeheartedly embrace those labels who worry and irk me, not just those who have an opinion; but the people who craft a political identity (such as VG) out of being 'anthropocentric' (like people who all about 'progress')... they also tend to lack respect for dissenting points of view, again - see: VG.


[email protected]

In my opinion this is an issue where people should have an opinion.

I couldnt disagree more, whether or not one makes a fetish of 'human progress' or 'mother earth' is really a dead-end IMO... communists should think critically, analyse and make judgements/decisions based on evidence.

However, tt's clear that for some people 'unconditional anthropocentrism' = a dogma, and thus rather than engaging things on a case-by-case basis such people instead have knee-jerk responses on any-given issue.



So, could you please contribute to that debate instead of just throwing around your favorite buzzword 'technocrat' in 'witty' one or two line posts?

I have made a contribution, infact no less than three members made reference to my POV in their posts.

And lol, technocrat is not my favourite 'buzzword' (that would be tankie; though granted i use it sparingly), nor i was attempting to be 'witty'.


Sentinel

Technocracy is totally irrelevant to this discussion, as it really isn't synonymous with anthropocentrism or being pro-technology.

If you say so boss.

[BurnTheOliveTree]

That's a strawman of the highest order.

Sorry man. I was just asking to see how literally you're using the word unconditional.

In it's absolute sense, that would mean advance the species regardless of everything. Evidently this isn't what you mean by anthropocentrism, so I'm just trying to pinpoint exactly where the line is drawn, if that makes sense.


without interfering with human wellbeing and progress

See, Rosen would have said that if people are entertained by watching the cats burn, that is "human wellbeing" and the cat's interests shouldn't enter into it.

It seems he represents a more extreme version of species loyalty than you.

-Alex

[Sentinel]

It's less the poll question and more the rhetoric of the self-identified 'anthropocentrics'... 'biocentrism' (in reality im not sure if many people actually self-identity in this way) appears to be a spectre haunting the planet.

Lighten up, this is just some philosophical pondering.


Maybe, but it's the people who wholeheartedly embrace those labels who worry and irk me, not just those who have an opinion; but the people who craft a political identity (such as VG) out of being 'anthropocentric' (like people who all about 'progress')... they also tend to lack respect for dissenting points of view, again - see: VG.

Yeah, but VG isn't like that because he is anthropocentric, it's because he's an authoritarian. I'm not, neither is anyone of the 'technocrats and their sympathisers' as you call us -- cause while marxist-leninists and other 'orthodox' marxists tend to adhere to the anthropocentric position ..so do many autonomists and anarchists.


communists should think critically, analyse and make judgements/decisions based on evidence.

That's exactly what I'm arguing, and I hope for our safety those decisions are going to be made and applied from an anthropocentric perspective.


However, tt's clear that for some people 'unconditional anthropocentrism' = a dogma, and thus rather than engaging things on a case-by-case basis such people instead have knee-jerk responses on any-given issue.

Well then we disagree here, like I've said repeatedly now, I value human life and the improvement and advancing of our species more than anything. That will open the locked doors to unlimited power for the proletariat. Historical materialism and all that.

If something as basic and logical as opposing attempts to limit human development without any from human perspective rational reason can be called dogma, well yeah then I am dogmatic. And proud to be.


And lol, technocrat is not my favourite 'buzzword' (that would be tankie; though granted i use it sparingly)

That now, is a rather useful buzzword. :lol:


If you say so boss.

:(


See, Rosen would have said that if people are entertained by watching the cats burn, that is "human wellbeing" and the cat's interests shouldn't enter into it.

It seems he represents a more extreme version of species loyalty than you.

Are you sure he was being serious? :o That kind of thing is really about general cruelty, not species loyalty. And considering the region and the era, those guys burning cats would have been considered quite lightweight in cruelty in Europe back then, as they were even burning people on a regular basis!

Witch hunts were made illegal first in 1721 (in Prussia) and the last ones might have occurred in 1782 (in Schweiz). And even farther back people used to make other people fight as gladiators, tear them into pieces in front of an audience, everything. Nasty stuff.

I don't see any reason to think anthropocentrism and cruelty would be linked somehow.

[BurnTheOliveTree]

Are you sure he was being serious?

Well, I suppose I could just be gullible, but I think so. Here's some of the stuff he said:



If someone wants to kill, abuse, or rape animals, I couldn't care less for the animal,


why should we give a fuck if cats are burned. I personally don't care how many domestic cats you burn. I guarantee it won't affect me and I have no loyalty to cats as I do for humanity.


if for some reason somebody wants to misstreat or kill an animal, I don't really see the logic in human society reprimanding one of its own in favor of a cat.


Human society has never and will never care about the suffering or happiness of other animals. That's why we eat them all the time.


It's cute that you don't wanna hurt animals, but at least face the fact that there is no logic or consistency behind that position.

Thread (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=61819&st=50)

I had assumed he was a typical example of an "unconditional" anthropocentrist.

I think my basic mistake was just to take the word unconditonal too literally.

-Alex

[Lynx]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2007 03:20 pm
Lighten up, this is just some philosophical pondering.
No, this is rhetoric, as in 'either you're with us or against us'.
It is a common tactic of trying to present an issue as if it were black and white so that other points of view can be ignored.
Are we to pretend there is no common ground, no basis for consensus, just so extremists can hold onto their opinions? Again??

~
An environmentalist can be anyone who wishes to protect the environment. Whether they carry out their actions because of an ism or because they believe it is what Jesus would do is of no concern to me.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

LOL who voted unconditional biocentrism?

Was it a joke vote or were you being serious.

I really am not attacking whoever voted for it, i just want to know why.

I bet it was Chimx or Apathy. :P

[apathy maybe]

I haven't actually voted in the poll yet... So it isn't me.

I am most definitely sympathetic to the ideas of the "Dark Greens" (Environmentalism#Dark_Greens_and_Light_Greens (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmentalism#Dark_Greens_and_Light_Greens)) and certain aspects of "Deep Ecology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep+Ecology)" (obviously not the "spiritual" parts ...), however, I don't call my self "biocentric" and most definitely not antrhopocentric.

In some ways I agree with Black Dagger and others regarding the two are not mutually exclusive.

Of course, voting for either of the first two options excludes the possibilities for supporting aliens species. What happens if hyper intelligent aliens come to Earth? If it is in the interest of humans, would you attempt to wipe them out? Bah, that isn't really clear is it...

Edit: added links to Wikipedia that were intended to be in there in the first place ...

[Mujer Libre]

Originally posted by Sentinel
Could you elaborate on this? How is thinking that all life is equally valuable more beneficial for humanity than considering human life and wellbeing more valuable than that of other species?
Well, that all depends on how you define biocentrism (which I think your original post misreprsents). I'm going with the definition that basically says that humans are part of ecosystems and environments and thus the interests of humans and, broadly speaking 'the environment' are often one and the same.


And how can they be the same, clearly we are often put to a situation where we have to harm other species in order to decrease human suffering, which is contradictory to (at least unconditional) biocentrism?
Well obviously I'm not in favour of unconditional biocentrism... Also, what do you mean by 'harming' other species? I mean, I don't have a problem with using animals, say for food, but what I do have a problem with is reckless treatment of the environment, say through poor farming practices or hunting species to extinction.

Clearly, if human lives are at stake, they are my main priority, but I think that also misrepresents the issue. In a lot of cases people act in ways that appear "anthropocentric"- say by growing monocultural crops that increase yields in the short term. But in the long term they actually harm both the environment and the people who have come to depend on them.

So yeah, basically- I think this is a false binary.


Also, if you think biocentrism is in the interest of humanity, why didn't you vote for it?
Because, as I hope I've shown above, I think the binary presented is false.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Since when does 4 poll choices constitute a "binary"? :wacko:

[Mujer Libre]

It's a binary because you have to be one or the other? Or at least, that's what the poll suggests. There's no overlapping ground...

[Lynx]

It's a binary because of the way the issue was presented. The implications of having more than two choices have been ignored by those determined to see this as black and white. Literally mind over matter.

[Sentinel]

Originally posted by Mujer Libre+--> (Mujer Libre)Well, that all depends on how you define biocentrism (which I think your original post misreprsents). [/b]

Not as I see it. There are a lot of unconditionally biocentric individuals who are literally just like that, and many of them have elevated positions in environmentalist groups. Check this thread: ELF-ALF (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=36532)


Originally posted by [email protected]
"If the death of one rat cured all diseases, it wouldn't make any difference to me."

-Chris De Rose, Director, Last Chance for Animals

Six million Jews died in concentration camps, but six billion broiler chickens will die this year in slaughter houses."

-Ingrid Newkirk, President, PETA, The Washington Post, November 13, 1983.

Those people should seek counceling! Thanks for the quotes NoXion.


Mujer Libre
I'm going with the definition that basically says that humans are part of ecosystems and environments and thus the interests of humans and, broadly speaking 'the environment' are often one and the same.

Obviously, the interests of mankind and those of other lifeforms, entire ecosystems, even all life on earth sometimes are mutual. Naturally, here the anthropocentric and the biocentric agree. But now, there are also situations where it's possible to advance the human species, or benefit us somehow on the expense of other lifeforms without any negative consequences befalling us. This is where people making a decision have to pick a side. Among communists who strive to make decisions collectively, many will have to. I'm interested in what people would pick in such a situation, which really determines where their allegiance lies, hence the poll.


Well obviously I'm not in favour of unconditional biocentrism... Also, what do you mean by 'harming' other species? I mean, I don't have a problem with using animals, say for food, but what I do have a problem with is reckless treatment of the environment, say through poor farming practices or hunting species to extinction.

Reckless treatment of the environment definitely isn't anthropocentric, it's egoistic hunting for short term benefits. Yeah, that's it, capitalist behavior. I do not advocate practices leading to other species going extinct if human life or progress is hurt by them more on a long term. No, such practices should be rethought and replaced, and those who'd been doing them compensated, if necessary (no human is to starve, suffer or die because of an animal no matter what). But if the actions leading to the extinction of a species merely benefited us, or if we could handle the consequences, they have my support. Too bad for that animal, and that's how I differ from many devout biocentrics..

The same with vivisection, which benefits us and causes suffering to animals. I support it for important (such as medical) purposes, heck even chimx supports it on some occasions. But there are.. ahem, people out there (:lol:) who are unconditionally against all forms of it, because of their biocentrism! Those are the true biocentrics. One of my purposes with this thread is to see how broad support that kind of sentiment has here, and to discredit it. Maybe make someone reconsider.


Clearly, if human lives are at stake, they are my main priority, but I think that also misrepresents the issue. In a lot of cases people act in ways that appear "anthropocentric"- say by growing monocultural crops that increase yields in the short term. But in the long term they actually harm both the environment and the people who have come to depend on them.

Then we are in agreement here (see my last paragraph), which makes you too antropocentric..? :o ;)



It's a binary because you have to be one or the other? Or at least, that's what the poll suggests. There's no overlapping ground...

There are two choices, called 'leaning towards', and in my opening post I ask people to clarify those. They could mean that one is antropocenric/biocentric when it comes to certain issues -- actually they could mean anything! Also, one can always null his/her vote if one doesn't feel any option fits them. In such a case I just hope they explain their position more indepth so we can have a good debate.

What I'm trying to say, is that of course people are entitled to disagree with the poll options, how could they not be? This is a poll asking for opinions, not a vote to decide some issue, and if you have one that differs from the ones presented, go ahead and explain it. The discussion is what matters. I'll edit the opening post to say that, as there seems to be some confusion. English isn't my first language -- even if I try and make myself clear and express myself thoroughly sometimes I fail.

[apathy maybe]

Sentinel: I'm not so sure that the people that you are quoting are real biocentrics at all.

There is a third option, and that is not putting the eco-system first (as biocentrics do), and not humans first, but rather animals first.

Biocentrics would generally not actually have a problem with eating other animals, because that is part of nature.

It is like confusing primitivists with vegans and vegetarians, primitivists aren't vegans or vegetarians.

[Sentinel]

Well there sure seems to be a lot of differing opinions and interpretations on what biocentrism actually means. I'd say many here are either fond of the label, or somehow trying to show solidarity to people/organisations they feel are their comrades or allies -- while they actually are anthropocentric! Now, I for one really want to get to the core of the issue here and see what biocentrism (and anthropocentrism) actually is (are) about.

AM, you do have a point that some animal rights activists are plain nutters, perhaps the two I mentioned are, point taken. But obviously many do adhere to a biocentric thinking model, they think mankind is wrongfully exploiting the ecosystems and being egoistical by hurting those animals..

But about biocentrism itself and what it constitutes, do you disagree with the wiki definition of biocentrism?


Biocentrism is a term that has several meanings but is most commonly defined as the belief that all forms of life are equally valuable and humanity is not the center of existence. Biocentric positions generally advocate a focus of the well-being of all life in the consideration of ecological, political, and economic issues.

Biocentrism has been contrasted to anthropocentrism, which is the belief that human beings and human society are, or should be, the central focus of existence.


How about left biocentrism, as defined by one of it's proponents?


Left Biocentrism Primer

March 15, 1998

The following Primer is a result of a protracted collective discussion among a numer of those who support left biocentrism and deep ecology.

- Left biocentrism is a left focus or theoretical tendency within the deep ecology movement, which is subversive of the existing industrial society. It accepts and promotes the eight-point Deep Ecology Platform drawn up by Arne Naess and George Sessions. Left biocentrism holds up as an ideal, identification, solidarity, and compassion with all life. "Left" as used in left biocentrism, means anti- industrial and anti-capitalist, but not necessarily socialist. The expressions 'left biocentrism' or 'left ecocentrism' are used interchangeably.

- Left biocentrism accepts the view that the Earth belongs to no one. While raising a number of criticisms, left biocentrism is meant to strengthen, not undermine, the deep ecology movement which identifies with all life.

- Left biocentrism says that individuals must take responsibility for their actions and be socially accountable. Part of being individually responsible is to practice voluntary simplicity, so as to minimize one's own impact upon the Earth.

- Left biocentrists are concerned with social justice and class issues, but within a context of ecology. To move to a deep ecology world, the human species must be mobilized, and a concern for social justice is a necessary part of this mobilization. Left biocentrism is for the redistribution of wealth, nationally and internationally.

- Left biocentrism opposes economic growth and consumerism. Human societies must live within ecological limits so that all other species may continue to flourish. We believe that bioregionalism, not globalism, is necessary for sustainability. The perspective of the late German Green philosopher Rudolf Bahro is accepted that, for world-wide sustainability, industrialized countries need to reduce their impact upon the Earth to about one tenth of what it is at the present time. It is also incumbent upon non- industrialized nations to become sustainable and it is necessary for industrialized nations to help on this path.

- Left biocentrism holds that individual and collective spiritual transformation is important to bring about major social change, and to break with industrial society. We need inward transformation, so that the interests of all species override the short-term self-interest of the individual, the family, the community, and the nation.

- Left biocentrism believes that deep ecology must be applied to actual environmental issues and struggles, no matter how socially sensitive, e.g. population reduction, aboriginal issues, workers' struggles, etc.

- Social ecology, eco-feminism and eco-marxism, while raising important questions, are all human-centered and consider human-to-human relations within society to be more important and, in the final analysis, determine society's relationship to the natural world. Left biocentrism believes that an egalitarian, non-sexist, non-discriminating society, a highly desirable goal, can still be exploitive towards the Earth.

- Left biocentrists are "movement greens" in basic orientation. They are critical of existing Green political parties, which have come to an accommodation with industrial society and have no accountability to the deep ecology movement.

- To be politically relevant, deep ecology needs to incorporate the perspective advanced by left biocentrism.

David Orton
Coordinator, Green Web
R.R. #3 Saltsprings, Nova Scotia, Canada B0K 1P0
[email protected]

Link (http://www.ic.org/pnp/biocentrism.php)

Clearly, this person prioritises the ecosystem before the mankind, he is a self-labeled 'left biocentric' -- and his views collide greatly with those of mine. But this isn't about labels, forget labels. It's about what people actually have to say, and it's about people's actual priorities: humanity first, or 'the ecosystem' first.

Clearly, a conflict exists here and I think we ought to discuss this.

[Lynx]

What conflict? You now seem to believe that people hold to the same principles regardless of any given situation or that their position on one particular scenario defines their ideology completely.

When faced with being pounced on by a lion I instinctively become an Unconditional Anthropocentrist. When forced to make 'hard choices' I will side with my own species. But other scenarios present opportunities for me to take other approaches and some of those can be quite Biocentric. Or Left Biocentric.

According to you, which scenario 'counts' the most? The one where I'm about to be attacked by a lion? Hard-choice scenarios? All scenarios?

Why do you wish to place me or anyone into a box?

Actual environmental policy is and will be based on objective reasoning and consensus, not the rigid confines of x-ism applied to x-situation. This issue is also non-revolutionary in nature.

[Lynx]

Allow me to put this another way: nobody is going to get their full wish list when theory is put into practice.

[Black Dagger]

Originally posted by Sentinel+--> (Sentinel)Lighten up, this is just some philosophical pondering. [/b]

Lighten up? I can't believe in a thread where piece of work like 'vanguard1917' is participating, i'm the one you tell to 'lighten up' :unsure:

P.S. i dont see much in the way of 'pondering' - in fact the self-identified 'anthropocentrics' seems resigned to wallowing in just how indisputably correct they are. Indeed when i suggested that perhaps its not wise to paint oneself into a corner by 'unconditionally' supporting a rigid ideological position... you essentially accused me of spamming :/


Originally posted by Sentinel+--> (Sentinel)Yeah, but VG isn't like that because he is anthropocentric, it's because he's an authoritarian. I'm not, neither is anyone of the 'technocrats and their sympathisers' as you call us -- [/b]

Eh, obviously you're not going to perceive your own actions or approach to be dogmatic, but suffice to say... that to me... in this, an area of debate that is immensely complex and important, pledging 'unconditional' support for a specific (and thus necessarily limited and obfuscatory ideological label) feels awfully dogmatic.

And really unncessary.


Originally posted by sentinel

cause while marxist-leninists and other 'orthodox' marxists tend to adhere to the anthropocentric position ..so do many autonomists and anarchists.

Never in my life have i came across a self-identified 'anthropocentric' autonomist or anarchist... indeed (fortunately) such people seem to exist only on this forum.


Originally posted by Sentinel
That's exactly what I'm arguing, and I hope for our safety those decisions are going to be made and applied from an anthropocentric perspective.

Here's the rub - the 'environments interests' and 'human interests' can reinforce each other. Indeed human interests are plainly tied to the planets sustainability. From this POV to argue for an 'anthropocentric' perspective is redundant - of course humans will act in their interests - that is only rational, we need to do what is best for humanity. But here's the problem, self-preservation does not entail the kind of apathy or disdain for the natural world many people in this forum articulate.

That for example, the natural world has no value. I can remember one member remarking something to the effect that they would not balk at a world covered in concrete (though this was probably hyperbole); then you have crypto-right libertarians like VG who thinks humanities interests lie somehow on a highway filled with hummers :rolleyes:

Sorry, but i like being able to breathe the air, and enjoy the natural world (particularly whilst high)... oh and big cars annoy the fuck out of me...


Originally posted by Sentinel
Well then we disagree here, like I've said repeatedly now, I value human life and the improvement and advancing of our species more than anything.

Yeah, we do - i really have no time for 'lets build better humans'-type eugenics/transhumanist crap (i know you dont think that those two concepts can be conflated, so dont bother correcting me ;) )


Originally posted by Sentinel
That will open the locked doors to unlimited power for the proletariat. Historical materialism and all that.

This is really just flowery marxist rhetoric? I'm not sure what you actually mean in practice.


[email protected]
If something as basic and logical as opposing attempts to limit human development without any from human perspective rational reason can be called dogma, well yeah then I am dogmatic. And proud to be.

I would argue that your position is dogmatic (and have done so), but obviously i wouldnt (and havent) presented things as you have this in paragraph ;)




---------------


lynx
Actual environmental policy is and will be based on objective reasoning and consensus, not the rigid confines of x-ism applied to x-situation. This issue is also non-revolutionary in nature.

Agreed.

[Sentinel]

What conflict? You now seem to believe that people hold to the same principles regardless of any given situation or that their position on one particular scenario defines their ideology completely.

Like I've demonstrated, actual devout biocentric people (like David Orton) consider class and social issues secondary to the wellbeing of other species and lifeforms -- and for their own sake, not for humanitys. I'm both curious about how many such people we have here, how many of those who consider themselves 'unconditionally biocentric' actually aren't, and just how biocentric they then are.


When faced with being pounced on by a lion I instinctively become an Unconditional Anthropocentrist. When forced to make 'hard choices' I will side with my own species. But other scenarios present opportunities for me to take other approaches and some of those can be quite Biocentric. Or Left Biocentric.

Also, I'm curious about in which situations people consider anthropocentric actions, ones that harm other lifeforms but benefit humans and don't harm us even in the long run, justified. For instance, are you OK with vivisection? If so, just for being conducted to find cures to ailments, or perhaps even to make innovations which could benefit humans? Or is what you call your anthropocentrism limited to immediate self-defence?


According to you, which scenario 'counts' the most? The one where I'm about to be attacked by a lion? Hard-choice scenarios? All scenarios?

The lion scenario is not very interesting, it merely proves you don't have an urgent death wish. It is mainly those concerning management of society, research and use of natural resources that interest me. If you got to decide, how would we manage the planet and interact with other species: to our own, ultimate benefit, or to that of all life on earth?

And most importantly, in a situation when those are contradictory, what should we choose?


Why do you wish to place me or anyone into a box?

Like I've said, I'm just curious to how people relate to the question of 'anthropocentrism vs biocentrism'.


This issue is also non-revolutionary in nature.

How so? And do you consider it irrelevant when revolutionary politics are discussed? It sure seems to divide people who consider themselves revolutionaries, and will thus propably create division in a revolutionary society.. How will it be run?


Allow me to put this another way: nobody is going to get their full wish list when theory is put into practice.

I'm not arguing such a thing. I'm just curious about people's thoughts on this issue.

[Black Dagger]

Originally posted by Sentinel
Now, I for one really want to get to the core of the issue here and see what biocentrism (and anthropocentrism) actually is (are) about.

The internet is deceptive. Just because something has a page on wikipedia doesnt mean it has any signifiance offline. Indeed, neither 'anthropocentrism' or 'biocentrism' seem to have much meaning or currency in the revolutionary movement (at least where i live).

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by bleeding gums malatesta+May 18, 2007 05:18 pm--> (bleeding gums malatesta @ May 18, 2007 05:18 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected]

cause while marxist-leninists and other 'orthodox' marxists tend to adhere to the anthropocentric position ..so do many autonomists and anarchists.

Never in my life have i came across a self-identified 'anthropocentric' autonomist or anarchist... indeed (fortunately) such people seem to exist only on this forum.
[/b]
Who who have or have not come across in your life means jack shit I'm afraid. The fact that we use this forum doesn't make us any less real or anarchist. I, for example, have met transhumanist and anthropocentric anarchists who would probably take great offence at your implication that their ideological position is an "internet thing".



Sentinel
Well then we disagree here, like I've said repeatedly now, I value human life and the improvement and advancing of our species more than anything.

Yeah, we do - i really have no time for 'lets build better humans'-type eugenics/transhumanist crap (i know you dont think that those two concepts can be conflated, so dont bother correcting me ;) )
WHY? What the fuck is wrong with striving to improve our species - exactly? We've made better animals, what is so "pure" about the human genome that we shouldn't change it? We have achieved so much in this state but imagine how much more we could achieve by pushing our evolution on a stage, self-guiding our improvement. We could develop to live in different conditions - imagine how much pressure would be taken off major cities if we had humans that could survive underwater or at the top of mountains, even in space? This is just one set of possible advantages - throwing away the chance to climb beyond our previous limitations is a monumental mistake.

(Just had to jump on those two statements because they really irked me)

[Delirium]

The health of the planet and the working class closely tied. The poorest are the first to suffer from environmental destruction, and will be most affected by global warming.

There is nothing sacred about humanity, there is nothing sacred about the earth.

I null my vote, though i could have chosen either middle position.

[Black Dagger]

Originally posted by JR+--> (JR)Who who have or have not come across in your life means jack shit I'm afraid. The fact that we use this forum doesn't make us any less real or anarchist. I, for example, have met transhumanist and anthropocentric anarchists who would probably take great offence at your implication that their ideological position is an "internet thing".[/b]

"Who who have or have not come across in your life means jack shit I'm afraid."

Surely that goes both ways.

Regardless of my personal experience or yours, 'anthropocentrism' and transhumanism are peripheral perspectives on (currently) peripheral social movements.

And yes, these are 'internet things' - there is no significant organised transhumanist movement offline, anarchist, autonomist or otherwise.


JR
WHY? What the fuck is wrong with striving to improve our species - exactly? We've made better animals, what is so "pure" about the human genome that we shouldn't change it? .... This is just one set of possible advantages - throwing away the chance to climb beyond our previous limitations is a monumental mistake.

What do you think of the eugenics movement?

[Vanguard1917]

The health of the planet and the working class closely tied. The poorest are the first to suffer from environmental destruction, and will be most affected by global warming.

The fact that, as you point out, it is the poorest people who are the most affected by natural threats, shows that the goal is for these people to become richer.

[Black Dagger]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 03:59 am

The health of the planet and the working class closely tied. The poorest are the first to suffer from environmental destruction, and will be most affected by global warming.

The fact that, as you point out, it is the poorest people who are the most affected by natural threats, shows that the goal is for these people to become richer.
What about socialist revolution? :mellow:

[Vanguard1917]

Originally posted by bleeding gums malatesta+May 18, 2007 06:01 pm--> (bleeding gums malatesta @ May 18, 2007 06:01 pm)
[email protected] 19, 2007 03:59 am

The health of the planet and the working class closely tied. The poorest are the first to suffer from environmental destruction, and will be most affected by global warming.

The fact that, as you point out, it is the poorest people who are the most affected by natural threats, shows that the goal is for these people to become richer.
What about socialist revolution? :mellow: [/b]
Yes, the poor will be richer under socialism.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by bleeding gums malatesta+May 18, 2007 05:54 pm--> (bleeding gums malatesta @ May 18, 2007 05:54 pm)
JR
Who who have or have not come across in your life means jack shit I'm afraid. The fact that we use this forum doesn't make us any less real or anarchist. I, for example, have met transhumanist and anthropocentric anarchists who would probably take great offence at your implication that their ideological position is an "internet thing".

"Who who have or have not come across in your life means jack shit I'm afraid."

Surely that goes both ways.[/b]
Well yes, you just seemed to be implying that these people don't exist - which must be news to them.


Regardless of my personal experience or yours, 'anthropocentrism' and transhumanism are peripheral perspectives on (currently) peripheral social movements.
That depends, most people don't immediately call themselves anthropocentric because it's pretty much a part of any normal leftist platform. Anthropocentrism is a default and people have to identify themselves as not anthropocentric (using labels like "green" for example.)


And yes, these are 'internet things' - there is no significant organised transhumanist movement offline, anarchist, autonomist or otherwise.
Transhumanism is enjoying an increase in popularity, thanks in part to greater amounts of scientific knowledge being available to laymen.


What do you think of the eugenics movement?
I do not condone coercive eugenics, obviously.

[Sentinel]

Here's the rub - the 'environments interests' and 'human interests' can reinforce each other. Indeed human interests are plainly tied to the planets sustainability. From this POV to argue for an 'anthropocentric' perspective is redundant - of course humans will act in their interests - that is only rational, we need to do what is best for humanity.

I've already answered this. Sometimes the interests of humanity indeed are the same as those of other species. But not always, and those are the situations that are relevant here.


Here's the rub - the 'environments interests' and 'human interests' can reinforce each other. Indeed human interests are plainly tied to the planets sustainability. From this POV to argue for an 'anthropocentric' perspective is redundant - of course humans will act in their interests - that is only rational, we need to do what is best for humanity. But here's the problem, self-preservation does not entail the kind of apathy or disdain for the natural world many people in this forum articulate.

That for example, the natural world has no value. I can remember one member remarking something to the effect that they would not balk at a world covered in concrete (though this was probably hyperbole); then you have crypto-right libertarians like VG who thinks humanities interests lie somehow on a highway filled with hummers rolleyes.gif

Well, that's kind of irrelevant as I don't advocate such things -- neither are they defining of anthropocentrism. What I do argue is that 'the natural world' has no value on it's own, only in relation to mankinds needs..

I don't advocate careless or unnecessary destruction of the environment, I just support it's manipulation when is necessary to uphold and elevate human living standards (of course, without creating unsolveable environmental problems which would harm mankind more in the long run).


Sorry, but i like being able to breathe the air, and enjoy the natural world (particularly whilst high)...

Me too, but the attraction value of the environment is really secondary when faced with urgent human needs, I'm afraid. Which doesn't imply that the natural world should be ignored or purposely destroyed, if it can be avoided while prioritising those needs and keeping in mind long term consequences..


This is really just flowery marxist rhetoric? I'm not sure what you actually mean in practice.

Well, you can deny the existance of libertarian leftists adhering to historical materialism all you want. It won't make us disappear.. As long as you refuse to see anything about Marx works as positive or correct, and refuse to judge them by their face value instead of in light of Marx other agendas and actions and/or the deeds of twentieth century marxists, discussion on this will be impossible.

As to your attacks on the 'anarchistness' of people adhering to transhumanism and/or anthropocentrism, and your attacks on transhumanism as a philosophy, Jazzratt has already answered them quite well. The world is bigger than your circles -- keep an open mind.

[Black Dagger]

Originally posted by JR+--> (JR)Well yes, you just seemed to be implying that these people don't exist - which must be news to them.[/b]

I think you are reading too much into my statement... my statement was conditional:


Originally posted by me+--> (me)Never in my life have i came across a self-identified 'anthropocentric' autonomist or anarchist... indeed (fortunately) such people seem to exist only on this forum.[/b]


That depends, most people don't immediately call themselves anthropocentric because it's pretty much a part of any normal leftist platform.

That's a bit misleading.

Certainly revleftists are proponents of human interest - but it's misleading to assert that this makes 'anthropocentrism' (as you might define it) the 'default position'. The fact is that NOT ALL revleftists define 'human interest' in the same way, or within the same parameters - one need only to compare the posts of says VG and the 97% of the board for this diversity to become apparent. Yet all would place the needs of humanity at the forefront.

In practice that label 'anthropocentric' has connotations much more complex than ill-defined, 'human interest'.


[email protected]
Anthropocentrism is a default and people have to identify themselves as not anthropocentric (using labels like "green" for example.)

Again, this is misleading, least of all because the concept of anthropocentrism is relatively unknown or poorly understood by most leftists - it's really not a widely used term.

Also, i dont accept that being 'green' means not supporting human interest.


JR
I do not condone coercive eugenics, obviously.

So you have no criticisms of the 19th/20th century eugenics movement beyond an opposition to coercive practices?

[Delirium]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 12:59 pm

The health of the planet and the working class closely tied. The poorest are the first to suffer from environmental destruction, and will be most affected by global warming.

The fact that, as you point out, it is the poorest people who are the most affected by natural threats, shows that the goal is for these people to become richer.
The current model of industrialization will bring them some of them wealth, but not safety. A socialist revolution of course is the best solution, but global socialism will not solve all the problems of the planet. Without humanity being conscious of its huge power to change the earth (and the consequences doing so) any society will be self-destructive.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by bleeding gums [email protected] 18, 2007 06:21 pm
I think you are reading too much into my statement... my statement was conditional:

Fair enough.


That's a bit misleading.

Certainly revleftists are proponents of human interest - but it's misleading to assert that this makes 'anthropocentrism' (as you might define it) the 'default position'. The fact is that NOT ALL revleftists define 'human interest' in the same way, or within the same parameters - one need only to compare the posts of says VG and the 97% of the board for this diversity to become apparent. Yet all would place the needs of humanity at the forefront.
Aside from some really terrifying primmies and a few smatterings of green anarchists I have met most people on the left seem to understand that human life is more important than anything else, and that is how human self interest is defined. I don't know what the situation is where you are, but you seem to be building on some kind of belief that we're all like that.


In practice that label 'anthropocentric' has connotations much more complex than ill-defined, 'human interest'.
And most leftists would be fine with those connotations being attached to them.


Again, this is misleading, least of all because the concept of anthropocentrism is relatively unknown or poorly understood by most leftists - it's really not a widely used term.
Regardless it can be applied to them.


Also, i dont accept that being 'green' means not supporting human interest.
Most "green" parties and ideologies tend to be either biocentric or even worse bioconservative - like yourself.


So you have no criticisms of the 19th/20th century eugenics movement beyond an opposition to coercive practices?
Is this some kind of attempt to paint me as a racist because the understanding of genetics was poor during the late 19th and early 20th centuries? In which case you're shamelessly committing a guilt by association (http://www.fallacyfiles.org/guiltbya.html) fallacy. Of course you could also have a genuine interest in the criticisms and analysis I have of the eugenics movement. If it is the latter then I would say that the idea of improving humanity was a noble one but due mostly to racism and a large amount of ignorance in genetics it was doomed to failure. However the eugenics movement is pretty much irrelevant today as we have a much greater threat and that's bioconservatives who are attacking the freedom of people to improve themselves and their offspring for mainly sentimental reasons or, worse, religious ones ("playing god", anyone?).

[Vanguard1917]

Originally posted by Delirium BFSK+May 18, 2007 06:23 pm--> (Delirium BFSK @ May 18, 2007 06:23 pm)
[email protected] 18, 2007 12:59 pm

The health of the planet and the working class closely tied. The poorest are the first to suffer from environmental destruction, and will be most affected by global warming.

The fact that, as you point out, it is the poorest people who are the most affected by natural threats, shows that the goal is for these people to become richer.
The current model of industrialization will bring them some of them wealth, but not safety. A socialist revolution of course is the best solution, but global socialism will not solve all the problems of the planet. Without humanity being conscious of its huge power to change the earth (and the consequences doing so) any society will be self-destructive. [/b]
Industrial development makes the world safer and more suitable for human beings. In the industrially developed parts of the world, human beings are less subject to the destructive aspects of nature (floods, heatwaves, earthquakes, diseases, etc.) than ever before. This is an empirical fact.

[chimx]

This poll is asinine. It reminds me of psychiatrists arguing over the existence of genuine altruism.

Biocentrism is founded on the principle that all life is equally important to the general well being of any environment. The advocacy of environmental health is ultimately founded on "anthropocentric" principles as we can reduce these values to the personal interests of the biocentrist. Whether they are biocentric for scientifically founded ecological reasons, or for personal mystical reasons, the reason is inevitably a human reason, and thus, centered around a human value.

That is why this poll is inherently fallacious, because it misunderstands the foundations of supposed "biocentrists". A much better poll would be to ask individuals if they ultimately define themselves and their relationships anthropoloically and sociologically, or ecologically. I.e.: species-centric or inter-species-centric (what's the antonym of centric?).

[chimx]

p.s.: i voted for unconditional biocentrism due to my irritation with the poll.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

that's actually a very good thing brought up by Chimx.

I didnt see it that way.


p.s.: i voted for unconditional biocentrism due to my irritation with the poll.

hah i knew it :P

[Sentinel]

A much better poll would be to ask individuals if they ultimately define themselves and their relationships anthropoloically and sociologically, or ecologically. I.e.: species-centric or inter-species-centric (what's the antonym of centric?).

I can agree that might have been a better wording.. OK, I'm removing the poll and unpinning this then -- and with the criticisms regarding the structuring of the poll question in mind, I'll try to make a new and better worded one.

[chimx]

Oh sweet green justice!

[Sentinel]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 09:43 pm
Oh sweet green justice!

Look, I'm not an unreasonable man, and I see when a thread I made has come into a dead end. Clearly some 'green' people here don't agree with or understand the common definition of biocentrism outside circles advocating it -- it isn't 'biocentrism is always beneficial for mankind and therefore anthropocentric', and don't grasp how it clashes with anthropocentrism. So the debate is not going to lead anywhere with the current wording.

With it, some people refused to listen to any of the questions I wanted to discuss, mainly: would they take a biocentric or an anthropocentric position in a situation when they were contradictory.

You can't deny that there are situations when one has to choose, when the interests of mankind collide heavily with those of some other species.. and when all life can't be valued equally from an anthropocentric perspective, ie anthropocentrism and biocentrism are contradictory.

Like I said, I will make a new thread for this to be discussed, or maybe someone else will.

[Vanguard1917]

the interests of mankind collide heavily with those of some other species.. and when all life can't be valued equally from an anthropocentric perspective, ie anthropocentrism and biocentrism are contradictory.

Yes. For example, 'animal liberation' and human liberation. These two things are contradictory, not complementary. Greater human mastery of nature entails subjecting nature to the will of human beings.

[chimx]

You can't deny that there are situations when one has to choose, when the interests of mankind collide heavily with those of some other species.. and when all life can't be valued equally from an anthropocentric perspective, ie anthropocentrism and biocentrism are contradictory.

First my apologies if you mistook my (intened) lighthearted comment as something else.

That said, I understand what you were implying with the thread, but just disagreed with the manner in which it was conveyed. It is my opinion that we ultimately define our values, be they class or environental, around self-preservation and/or self-satisfaction. This preference, regardless of if it is rationally or irrationally based, will inevitably define how we view ourselves within our environment.

i would argue that unapologetic anthropocentrics make the logical error of what some call "speciesism", in that they ideologially uphold the collective human experience over the needs of the individual, which are often dependent on the healh environment.

Personally I find unabashed anthropocentricism that ignores our ecological relationshps ignorant and deplorable, becaue it is not necessarily in the interest of the human species nor my own individual needs and desires.

[socialistfuture]

biocentralism 4 life!

[socialistfuture]

i would say the top of the food chain is a tyrant. is he the pinacle of the human species?

the smartest is the best? because sumone can dominate with technology or force (or force their technology) they should? id like to understand why sum poeple think humans are 'more important' and how why they think they have a 'higher value'. and does that reasoning mean then that some humans have a higher value then others.

to me it seems with you have a hierarchy with ppl at top, then you have others on top of that. the human food chain i'll call it.

personally i think co operation rather than competiton is better, co existence etc.

i like the badge that says: animal liberation - human liberation with a clenched fist and dog paw.

i love ppl (sum of them) and animals.. and earth. i think ppl without any of the others wld be boring and lacking. ppl dont make light, air, sound, darkness... they are simply part of a process called life - not the creators of it, simply participents. humans are members of this world, that is shared with many life forms.

[socialistfuture]

This is a unique piece of writing. Wiwa Wewo came to Europe from his native West Papua in 1999. West Papua is one of last places on the planet that is almost untouched by our destructive civilisation. But not for much longer; Indonesia's colonisation and the advancement of multinationals to exploit its massive natural resources leaves its tribal people murdered, tortured, and forced to leave their land, its forests ripped down, its mountains decapitated, and its rivers poisoned. Wiwa Wewo was sent by his people, the Lani, to find out exactly what "that Europe thing is that is attacking us." This pamphlet is a version of the letter he wrote back to his people to tell them what he found and what he thought this meant for the Lani and other tribal peoples.

His letter has the unusual clarity of view of someone from the outside, someone who has not been socialised and indoctrinated into our system. He writes with the uncompromising reality of someone whose seen and experienced the horrors and injustices that exist at the edges of our civilisation. He asks "how can I forgive or forget these things?" He came to Europe to see the 'modernity' he is seeing tribal people being pushed towards, and he found that this 'civilisation' was not going to solve the suffering of his people, rather it was causing it. The letter ranges from analytical criticisms of religious organisations, government, aid organisations, corporations, and of western culture itself, to touching accounts of individual atrocities that have happened close to him. It is an interesting and unusual piece of writing that I would recommend to anyone who casts a critical eye over our modern world.

To assume the third world wants to copy the first is complete arrogance. yes if sumone is in poverty they want to better their situation (not necessarily wanting to replicate the excessive wealth flaunted by this decadent society tho).

[socialistfuture]

also this debate seems to be alot about development at any cost, making an assumption that anything that creates wealth is beneficial (to man as a species).

I could be fooled for thinking there are representatives of the World Bank and WTO on this forum.


"This is our territory. The soldiers dare not come here now. They came and we defeated them," he says. "We are civilised people, educated people, and we do not want our children to be deprived as we have been deprived so other people can get rich from what is under our feet. The oil companies and government have had many years to treat us right. They have never done it. Now we are making them think."
from MEND spokesperson

The Movement for the Emancipation of the Niger Delta ("MEND") is a militant indigenous people's movement dedicated to armed struggle against the exploitation and oppression of the people of Niger Delta and the degradation of their natural environment by foreign multinational corporations involved in the extraction of oil in their homeland. MEND has been linked to attacks on foreign owned petroleum companies in Nigeria.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Movement_for_...the_Niger_Delta (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Movement_for_the_Emancipation_of_the_Niger_Delta)

what do Anthropocentrists think of them?

[Lynx]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 01:19 pm
Also, I'm curious about in which situations people consider anthropocentric actions, ones that harm other lifeforms but benefit humans and don't harm us even in the long run, justified. For instance, are you OK with vivisection? If so, just for being conducted to find cures to ailments, or perhaps even to make innovations which could benefit humans? Or is what you call your anthropocentrism limited to immediate self-defence?
I only support vivisection if it is necessary and not expedient.

[Cult of Reason]

Animals are a resource, like any other. However, using vivisection for non-essential functions is a waste when there are still medical gains to be made using the same method.

[JazzRemington]

There is nothing inherently special or unique about humans when compared to other animals. I understand the anthropocentrist doctrine, but I think humans are more or less just another animal.

[Cult of Reason]

Since when did anthropocentrist doctrine express that humans are somehow special?

As far as I am concerned, anthropocentrism is fundamentally loyalty to our own species. It could be extended to other sapients as and when they are discovered, of course.

[Sentinel]

There is nothing inherently special or unique about humans when compared to other animals. I understand the anthropocentrist doctrine, but I think humans are more or less just another animal.

Technically, you're obviously correct -- of course we are animals like any other, not 'special' in any way -- besides the superior intelligence, culture and technology thing. But what are the practical applications of that conclusion? Should we start treating our non-sentient 'friends' in the nature equally? I just don't think that makes any sense. We wouldn't have anything to gain from such a move, and it would be 'unnatural' if anything -- no other species does that either.

Haraldur is correct (as always :) ) about the fact that when other intelligent species are found, they should be treated with the appropriate respect. I do, by the way, think that we even now should consider whales and primates to be above the animal kingdom -- while they still are far from our level and regrettably propably should be used for testing in cases when that's of vital importance for us.

[RevMARKSman]

Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2007 03:32 pm
Since when did anthropocentrist doctrine express that humans are somehow special?

As far as I am concerned, anthropocentrism is fundamentally loyalty to our own species. It could be extended to other sapients as and when they are discovered, of course.
Maybe we could avoid the unpleasant (in some circles) connotations of "anthropocentrist" and instead call ourselves "sapiencentrists"...

[socialistfuture]

same thing, new name.

the question is do you support humanity (industrial humanity at that) at all costs. a better question is how long can capitalism last and what is next. humanity cant exist in isolation - what is humanity going to look like as climate chaos and resource depletion and species extinction kicks in?

what would the world be like without whales or wolves? or without half of the current species? we are loosing lots and gaining mainly money and temp material gains.

still that progress for some aii

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Originally posted by socialistfuture
the question is do you support humanity (industrial humanity at that) at all costs. a better question is how long can capitalism last and what is next.

The honest answer to both those questions is "I do not know". Of course, that doesn't mean we can't struggle for what we want.


humanity cant exist in isolation - what is humanity going to look like as climate chaos and resource depletion and species extinction kicks in?

Pretty fucked if we don't use the full extent of our abilities, technological and otherwise, to pull through as best we can.


what would the world be like without whales or wolves?

Not as good with them, admittedly, but still a world one can live in.


or without half of the current species?

This is what they call a "major extinction event". As harmful as human activities can be, I think we'll be forced to buck up our ideas before such a thing comes to pass. Things can get pretty awful before 50% of the world's species disappear.


we are loosing lots and gaining mainly money and temp material gains.

still that progress for some aii

Unlike you, I make a distinction between scientific progress and capitalism.

[socialistfuture]

i see capitalism as largely owning most scientific research (hence the early demise of the electric car and the reluctence to move out of fossil fuel power generation) -
a lot is for vast profit and product development and for the ever worshiped markets. how does the military budget of burma, israel, australia, indonesia, the US and china benefit the majority of the world? vast amounts of scientific study is done into warefare and for military development. heaps then gets based down into the economy afterwards. do you study science noxion? hae you ever studied ecology?

we are currently in what is called the 6th extinction wave. i can give u a lot of figures on how many species are dying out. surely you showed in your last post that things cannot continue at this pace. half of the world lives in urban settings. a large chuck of the world lives in india and china. all of these means all the national ecosystems of the world would be very stressed in the near future. i'm not doing a doom rant, i like to be hopeful - but don't see the needed changes happening when a lot of people don't see anything wrong as long as they have a big house, heaps of goods in it and several cars. finite resources, and carrying capacity are reality so that conflicts with endless growth. i' suggest you explore this more.

stephen hawkings said that the earth may become similar to venus if climate chaos gets to a stage where it can't be reversed and things like desertification, the melting of ice caps and eco system collapse occur. the amazon is drying out according to some reports and if that continues potentially it could start burning and not stop. if the worlds largest rainforests go and coral bleaching continues to occur - your industrial civilization will be gone.

a'll im saying is have a far deeper look into your 'progress' we may be one of those species that is on the endangered list soon. i'll recommend you some films and reports (yes they will be mainly science based if that is what you are after).

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 11:25 pm
i see capitalism as largely owning most scientific research (hence the early demise of the electric car and the reluctence to move out of fossil fuel power generation) -
Capitalism "largely owns" everything. Scientific advance though can't be owned, only the results. The early demise of the electric car was mainly due to it being a horribly flawed concept.


a lot is for vast profit and product development and for the ever worshiped markets. how does the military budget of burma, israel, australia, indonesia, the US and china benefit the majority of the world?

Red Herring there, the military budget of warlike nations is not anything to do with the vast bulk of scientific research. Even military research makes up a tiny art of it, and also a relatively low part of the military spending itself.


vast amounts of scientific study is done into warefare and for military development.

Vast amounts of scientific studies are done into everything, including ecology as you go on to demonstrate. Why, by the way, is ecology a perfectly acceptable science? I thought it was all evil corporation stuff. Or is this some of that hypocrisy you greens are so fond of?


we are currently in what is called the 6th extinction wave. i can give u a lot of figures on how many species are dying out. surely you showed in your last post that things cannot continue at this pace.

No one is seriously suggesting that it is best to continue exactly as we are, that would just be silly.


stephen hawkings said that the earth may become similar to venus if climate chaos gets to a stage where it can't be reversed and things like desertification, the melting of ice caps and eco system collapse occur.

Stephen Hawkings is an astrophysicist not a climatologist, this is an appeal to authority argument and therefore fails.


the amazon is drying out according to some reports

According to which reports?


a'll im saying is have a far deeper look into your 'progress' we may be one of those species that is on the endangered list soon. i'll recommend you some films and reports (yes they will be mainly science based if that is what you are after).

While these films and reports would be no doubt interesting you must bear in mind that science, by its nature, is not some magical force which makes one immediately correct - science is mostly a methodology and it falls to the scientist to make sure they have correct, reliable data and have drawn valid and sound conclusions.

[madcat]

I can't believe so much of you are Anthropocentrists.If you think about it Anthropocentrism is not much different from racism,except that it happens to "races"(which due to their greater difference we call species) that during millions of years of evolution have become very different from us because of the geographical division.We've all started as one single organism on earth and like it or not animals(which humans are too) are not that different from us.Just that we have evolved faster than other organisms doesn't give us the right to kill them and bring them to extinction...humanity have evolved over that.I don't believe that a life of a dog or any other animal costs less than human life.Being Anthropocentrist is incompatible with marxism in my opinion it is ideological.And for you meat eaters,how much of you have killed your own animals before you eat them?

EDIT:And for the people who say that only intelligent animals must be treated equally I say...Who are you to determine what is intelligent and what not?I can tell you for sure that all animals including my cat are intelligent.They may not be as intelligent as Homo sapiens but they have intelligence,simple emotions,moods and learn.What if tomorrow super intelligent aliens millions years evolution ahead come to earth and start lock us in farms and kill us for food.I mean that must be OK with you since their intelligence compared to ours will be like ours compared to a cat or a dog ?

[MarxSchmarx]

If you think about it Anthropocentrism is not much different from racism,except that it happens to "races"(which due to their greater difference we call species) that during millions of years of evolution have become very different from us because of the geographical division

Taken to its logical conclusion, eating fruits are like infanticide! Pulling out a dandelion is like murder! I mean, what separates us from plants other than millions of years of evolution and geographic division?

We gotta draw the line somewhere. Fellow humans seems as reasonable place to stop as any.


What if tomorrow super intelligent aliens millions years evolution ahead come to earth and start lock us in farms and kill us for food.I mean that must be OK with you since their intelligence compared to ours will be like ours compared to a cat or a dog

Well, cats and dogs and cows and eels are invited to fight like hell to prevent humans from putting them in farms and killing them. In fact, I hereby urge



'Beasts of England, beasts of Ireland,
Beasts of every land and clime,
Hearken to my joyful tidings
Of the golden future time.

'Soon or late the day is coming,
Tyrant Man shall be o'erthrown,
And the fruitful fields of England
Shall be trod by beasts alone.

What's that, they don't know how to organize a resistance? What's that, they don't care if their neighbor is taken to the slaughtering house? Well then, they don't deserve to live.

Same can't be said for humans. See, I don't think intelligence is really the issue. I think consciousness, empathy and conscience are. The fact of the matter is your cat can't empathize with me having a death in the family.

Chimps come close, and maybe some higher apes I'm willing to give a second chance. But I have no qualm about killing termites or mosquitoes. And I see little that distinguishes a cow, a trout, a rat or a dog from a termite. Where is the sense of "right and wrong" in a pig? Where is the sense of compassion for the suffering in the shark?

[Lynx]

Animals are at the mercy of humans. It is up to us, individually and societally, to decide what is acceptable regarding their treatment.

Today's attitudes towards animals are not cast in stone. They will change as society changes. Revolutionaries welcome change. Hopefully this is a desire we hold in common.

[MarxSchmarx]

the amazon is drying out according to some reports


According to which reports?

According to most reports on the subject:

http://www.greenpeace.org/international/pr...end-amazon-defo (http://www.greenpeace.org/international/press/releases/seven-years-to-end-amazon-defo)
http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/sep2007/2007-09-25-01.asp
http://www.panda.org/news_facts/newsroom/i...m?uNewsID=64220 (http://www.panda.org/news_facts/newsroom/index.cfm?uNewsID=64220)
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html...75BC0A9649C8B63 (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B04E6D6143CF930A1575BC0A9649C8B 63)
http://news.mongabay.com/2006/1127-stri.html

ad nauseum. Read the references in:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amazon_Rainforest


The early demise of the electric car was mainly due to it being a horribly flawed concept.

I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but you should rent:
http://www.sonyclassics.com/whokilledtheelectriccar/


the military budget of warlike nations is not anything to do with the vast bulk of scientific research...Vast amounts of scientific studies are done into everything, including ecology as you go on to demonstrate.

Yes, including ecology, but ecology gets peanuts compared to missile technology, balding cures, and erectile dysfunction pills.

Indeed, basic research is dwarfed by defense spending on science worldwide. For instance, in the U$A:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m120...67/ai_n13595560 (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1200/is_7_167/ai_n13595560)

The problem is the U$ defense budget is so massive, it's science arm dwarfs the next largest science budget in the world by an order of magnitude. It is fair to say a majority of scientific research as currently conducted is funded by the American military.

The European Council I think has about a 50 billion euro budget, while the U$ Department of Aggression funds approximately 100 billion USD in science related projects:
http://www.aaas.org/spp/rd/dod06p.htm

With medicine, gov't funding accounts for about a third:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research_funding
in the U$A, while the remainder is privately funded.

I'm sure Merck and Pfizer and their cronies are shelling out for the remainder because they are curious about the wonders of the natural world and want to help out of the goodness of their hearts.

[madcat]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2007 05:07 am

If you think about it Anthropocentrism is not much different from racism,except that it happens to "races"(which due to their greater difference we call species) that during millions of years of evolution have become very different from us because of the geographical division

Taken to its logical conclusion, eating fruits are like infanticide! Pulling out a dandelion is like murder! I mean, what separates us from plants other than millions of years of evolution and geographic division?

We gotta draw the line somewhere. Fellow humans seems as reasonable place to stop as any.


What if tomorrow super intelligent aliens millions years evolution ahead come to earth and start lock us in farms and kill us for food.I mean that must be OK with you since their intelligence compared to ours will be like ours compared to a cat or a dog

Well, cats and dogs and cows and eels are invited to fight like hell to prevent humans from putting them in farms and killing them. In fact, I hereby urge



'Beasts of England, beasts of Ireland,
Beasts of every land and clime,
Hearken to my joyful tidings
Of the golden future time.

'Soon or late the day is coming,
Tyrant Man shall be o'erthrown,
And the fruitful fields of England
Shall be trod by beasts alone.

What's that, they don't know how to organize a resistance? What's that, they don't care if their neighbor is taken to the slaughtering house? Well then, they don't deserve to live.

Same can't be said for humans. See, I don't think intelligence is really the issue. I think consciousness, empathy and conscience are. The fact of the matter is your cat can't empathize with me having a death in the family.

Chimps come close, and maybe some higher apes I'm willing to give a second chance. But I have no qualm about killing termites or mosquitoes. And I see little that distinguishes a cow, a trout, a rat or a dog from a termite. Where is the sense of "right and wrong" in a pig? Where is the sense of compassion for the suffering in the shark?
I totally agree that a line must be drawn somewhere,and drawing it on instinct driven insects and plants without nervous system and any conscious existence seems pretty reasonable.But on fellow mammals ? I think not.



Well, cats and dogs and cows and eels are invited to fight like hell to prevent humans from putting them in farms and killing them. In fact, I hereby urge


Oh, they fight as hell my dear friend,they struggle before being slaughtered.The thing is that our fighting back and organized resistance will be just as pathetic compared to the methods the "aliens" use to murder us.Get it now?It is not up to us to decide.


Chimps come close, and maybe some higher apes I'm willing to give a second chance. But I have no qualm about killing termites or mosquitoes. And I see little that distinguishes a cow, a trout, a rat or a dog from a termite. Where is the sense of "right and wrong" in a pig? Where is the sense of compassion for the suffering in the shark?

You don't have much experience with animals do you? Right and wrong are terms invented by men.I read a study some time ago that a pig equals in intelligence 3 year old human child.But I understand you can't see this since the only place you've ever seen a pig is in the slaughterhouse.
Though I understand your position,as it is said:


A bird gets compassion,a fish doesn't

People like things that resemble them the most.Pure racism.


PS:And BTW even in the capitalist era there seem to be far more compassion and respect toward animals than I see in you.And when the means of production are finally liberated from the bourgeoisie I really can't see Animal Farming and Killing continuing.Let alone I'll be one of the people who will sabotage and bomb this places ,and nobody really would want to work there as a murderer.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2007 12:40 pm
I totally agree that a line must be drawn somewhere,and drawing it on instinct driven insects and plants without nervous system and any conscious existence seems pretty reasonable.But on fellow mammals ? I think not.
Why not? What makes "fellow mammals" so similar to us that they deserve the protection offered by our society? Your "drawing the line" in a supremely arbitrary place.


Oh, they fight as hell my dear friend,they struggle before being slaughtered.

Struggling not to be killed when you're being killed is different to struggle for rights. Their "struggling" is instinct and results from the pain they feel, but any given moment up to the slaughtering they're unaware of what will happen to them.


The thing is that our fighting back and organized resistance will be just as pathetic compared to the methods the "aliens" use to murder us.Get it now?It is not up to us to decide.

You're off your fucking rocker.


You don't have much experience with animals do you? Right and wrong are terms invented by men.I read a study some time ago that a pig equals in intelligence 3 year old human child.

Ah the 3 year old child/pig chestnut. The difference between pig and child (and it's strange I have to explain this to you) is that one of them has that intellect as the highest possible in its existence whereas the child can go on to much greater heights and even contribute meaningfully to society. The best I can think of the pig offering is back bacon, sausages, knuckle sandwiches, pork pies, gammon, ham, crackling and ribs (to name a few.).


But I understand you can't see this since the only place you've ever seen a pig is in the slaughterhouse.

What difference does it make where he's seen a pig, they're all prety much the same (well, you get different breeds and so on but they all behave in pretty much the same manner.).


Though I understand your position,as it is said:


A bird gets compassion,a fish doesn't

People like things that resemble them the most.Pure racism.

Stop. Think what you're saying. Digest it and then explain to me why no one has ever taken upon themselves to strike you upside the head for being so damn stupid. Racism and treating species of animals is different because there are significant biological differences between humans and animals. I'm sorry but Walt Disney lied to you about animal behaviour.



PS:And BTW even in the capitalist era there seem to be far more
compassion and respect toward animals than I see in you.

Probably, most petit-bourgeois and bourgeois "activists" are into their animal rights. It helps distract the proletariat from class struggle.


And when the means of production are finally liberated from the bourgeoisie I really can't see Animal Farming and Killing continuing.

Lots of people have a real passion for that kind of work, and most of the bits they don't enjoy can be automated.


Let alone I'll be one of the people who will sabotage and bomb this places ,and nobody really would want to work there as a murderer.

So you will bomb these places, yet the people inside will be the murderers? I don't think that will stand up as a defence in a post-revolutionary society. As I pointed out farming is one of the few jobs people want to do voluntarily (along with being a publican or a writer) and most would be happy with slaughtering, especially if it could be automated and carried out more efficiently.

[Lynx]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2007 08:40 am
Oh, they fight as hell my dear friend,they struggle before being slaughtered.The thing is that our fighting back and organized resistance will be just as pathetic compared to the methods the "aliens" use to murder us.Get it now?It is not up to us to decide.

It is up to us to decide. Animals are at our mercy. If technologically advanced aliens came to Earth, the same reasoning would apply. We would be at their mercy. And they would decide.

Human beings are moral hypocrites. Do not get used to it.

[MarxSchmarx]

Madcat:

it is well-neigh impossible to top a response given by Jazzratt.

I am therefore obliged to add mere footnotes to his/her awe-inspiring response to your "arguments". This is a variation on a theme, if you will


The thing is that our fighting back and organized resistance will be just as pathetic compared to the methods the "aliens" use to murder us.Get it now?It is not up to us to decide.

I thought the whole point of "Why we shouldn't be anthropocentric" is for US to DECIDE to respect the rights of mam -- err... "animals."



Oh, they fight as hell my dear friend,they struggle before being slaughtered.

So does the fly I swatted this afternoon :( After all, as insects are driven by instinct and lack a central nervous system, for



Their "struggling" is instinct and results from the pain they feel
----

and drawing it on instinct driven insects and plants without nervous system and any conscious existence seems pretty reasonable.But on fellow mammals ? I 5hink not.

Good, so we agree the fungus in my refrigerator is not subject to the Geneva Convention.

Now, you claim "mammals" are where we draw the line. What about the monotremata? What about the sardine or the shark? And what about the starfish that isn't even a chordate? I know something about members of the kingdom animalia, and I will bet my pig-slaughtering ranch that the octopii I ate for dinner last Saturday are far more intelligent than your cute cuddly Fido.

Your distinction for your circle of care at the zoologically meaningless "mammalia" is, AT BEST, just as arbitrary as my distinction of Hominids.



You don't have much experience with animals do you?

Au contraire. It is BECAUSE I have spent so much doggone time killing worms by sticking a needle up their ass and hiding a hook in a fishe's last meal that I am convinced if I was smaller than that largemouth bass and swimming around, all my appeals to "compassion" would be ignored.


Right and wrong are terms invented by men.

And women. So don't WE have the exclusive right to decide who to include in our circle of care and who to not?

As Jazzratt said, stop watching Disney movies.

Your time is better spent fighting the injustice of man's cruelty to man, rather than man's cruelty to pigs.

[Jazzratt]

MarxSchmarx:

I'm still working on a reply to you (bastard, most people tend to talk so much hot air when they say stuff about reports, you have to go and bloody have the data...)

[madcat]

Originally posted by Jazzratt+--> (Jazzratt)Why not? What makes "fellow mammals" so similar to us that they deserve the protection offered by our society? Your "drawing the line" in a supremely arbitrary place.[/b]

And what makes them so different? They have basically the same biology(Do you know that the difference between Chimpanzee DNA's and Human's is %1?) .The only thing that is different is their evolutionary progress.I'm not saying they deserve a "protection", what I'm saying that they deserve not to be killed for fun.And since eating meat is not really biologically necessary for a human and Animal Farming is highly inefficient(The land needed to feed all the animals before being slaughtered is huge compared to the food source they provide) this is just for fun and pleasure.(Do you know that if Americans lower their consummation of meat with %10 the freed land will be enough to feed all of Africa starving people?).



Originally posted by Jazzratt+--> (Jazzratt)Struggling not to be killed when you're being killed is different to struggle for rights. Their "struggling" is instinct and results from the pain they feel, but any given moment up to the slaughtering they're unaware of what will happen to them.[/b]

Ok, let's slaughter for food humans then.We'll keep them unaware where they are going and then surprisingly will cut their head.They won't know what hit them.


Originally posted by Jazzratt
You're off your fucking rocker.

I didn't got it?What was that?


[email protected]
Ah the 3 year old child/pig chestnut. The difference between pig and child (and it's strange I have to explain this to you) is that one of them has that intellect as the highest possible in its existence whereas the child can go on to much greater heights and even contribute meaningfully to society. The best I can think of the pig offering is back bacon, sausages, knuckle sandwiches, pork pies, gammon, ham, crackling and ribs (to name a few.).

Well the pig you kill may carry a genetic mutation that will pave and elevate pigs evolution and someday may make them "intelligent" species? Thats how evolution works.I hope you don't tell the pigs their history then,they'll kick your "human" asses. :D


Jazzratt

What difference does it make where he's seen a pig, they're all prety much the same (well, you get different breeds and so on but they all behave in pretty much the same manner.).

Ever heard of "conditions determine consciousness" ?



Stop. Think what you're saying. Digest it and then explain to me why no one has ever taken upon themselves to strike you upside the head for being so damn stupid. Racism and treating species of animals is different because there are significant biological differences between humans and animals. I'm sorry but Walt Disney lied to you about animal behaviour.

Oh...I totally get it now.So when something is different you have to kill it and eat it.Right?It is funny because your comment on this one totally supports what you quoted and responded to. :D

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by madcat+October 17, 2007 12:13 am--> (madcat @ October 17, 2007 12:13 am)
Jazzratt
Why not? What makes "fellow mammals" so similar to us that they deserve the protection offered by our society? Your "drawing the line" in a supremely arbitrary place.

And what makes them so different? They have basically the same biology(Do you know that the difference between Chimpanzee DNA's and Human's is %1?) . [/b]
The main difference I suppose would be the lack of sapience -ability to draw reasoned and abstract conclusions and capacity for thought.


The only thing that is different is their evolutionary progress.

Nope. Most of them are as evolved as us.


I'm not saying they deserve a "protection", what I'm saying that they deserve not to be killed for fun.

They don't need to be killed for fun. They could be killed for food.


And since eating meat is not really biologically necessary for a human and Animal Farming is highly inefficient(The land needed to feed all the animals before being slaughtered is huge compared to the food source they provide) this is just for fun and pleasure.

So what if it is for fun and pleasure? The fact that you're wrong and it is, in fact, for food (no single food is "necessary" remember, it's only food in general that we need). Also, it doesn't matter whether something is "necessary" or not, most of what humans do is unnecessary but that doesn't mean we should stop.


(Do you know that if Americans lower their consummation of meat with %10 the freed land will be enough to feed all of Africa starving people?).

Did you know that based on the number of obese people versus the number of malnourished people we already have enough food. Having enough food isn't the problem - it's distributing it.


Ok, let's slaughter for food humans then.

That's batshit insane.


We'll keep them unaware where they are going and then surprisingly will cut their head.They won't know what hit them.

You cretin. People, unlike animals, are able to reason that because they're being fed and some of their number are being led off somewhere that they are in fact being systematically killed. Not only that cannibalism is a toxic diet.


I didn't got it?What was that?

You are a few sandwhiches short of a picnic, put of your tree, round the bend, loopy. You. Are. A. Nutter.


Well the pig you kill may carry a genetic mutation that will pave and elevate pigs evolution and someday may make them "intelligent" species? Thats how evolution works.I hope you don't tell the pigs their history then,they'll kick your "human" asses. :D

http://fstdt.com/funnyimages/uploads/560.PNG

Also, we keep telling you not to watch Disney films, but it appears you're not listening.


Ever heard of "conditions determine consciousness" ?

For that to work as an argument there needs to be a set of conditions in which animals are capable of sapience.


Oh...I totally get it now.So when something is different you have to kill it and eat it.

No, moron. When something is edible, not of your species and has historically been your prey there is no reason to stop someone killing and eating it. That's not to say you're obliged to eat just that you don't have a reason to stop others doing so.


Right?It is funny because your comment on this one totally supports what you quoted and responded to. :D

Some people, here on the planet Earth (I suggest you visit), like to use what we call logic. L-O-G-I-C, logic. I haven't said anything that supports your braindead arguments, nor am I likely to so kindly fuck off.

[madcat]

The only mistake I made is to respond to you since it seems you are incompetent on the subject.You lack basic biology understanding and don't know how even evolution works.I finally understand your views now...at least the reason for your views and it is called ignorance.There is no point to keep arguing with you since you can forever deny scientific facts.
It appears you really have your understanding of reality from Disney.
And just because I don't want to leave you ignorant on this one...Food is not only "food".There are actually ingredients in that food that the human body needs.And there aren't any special in meat that are not existent in other foods.So Animal Farming being inefficient there is no need for it.(not for pleasure you said)Raising demand levels for meat lead also to deforestation...but I guess you don't care about that either.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2007 12:50 am
The only mistake I made is to respond to you since it seems you are incompetent on the subject.
:lol: As compared to you? You brought up the similarity in DNA between chimps and humans as if it were relevant - clearly not understanding that even a 1% difference in DNA means a massive amount, look at bananas and people (2% difference.).


You lack basic biology understanding and don't know how even evolution works.

The sad thing is that I said nearly exactly the same thing to you. :rolleyes: But unfourtunately for you, I would wager that I know more about evolution - after all you're the one who thinks that pigs will become intelligent.


I finally understand your views now...at least the reason for your views and it is called ignorance.

Funny that my "ignorance" is shared by the majority of the scientific community while your "enlightenment" is shared by a couple of dozen soap dodgers and, if you're luck, your mother.


There is no point to keep arguing with you since you can forever deny scientific facts.

Which fact have I denied?


It appears you really have your understanding of reality from Disney.

:lol: This is really pathetic. It reminds me somewhat of an episode Blackadder II in which Blackadder attempts to explain to Baldric how to think for himself and Baldric simply parrots what Blackadder says.


And just because I don't want to leave you ignorant on this one...Food is not only "food".There are actually ingredients in that food that the human body needs.

Yes, but there is no one single item of food that provides all the required nutrients in the right amounts. Therefore there is not a single "necessary" food. If I was under the delusion you'd somehow grasp what the word meant I would point out that this leads to an interesting paradox where one could declare that "no food is necessary".


And there aren't any special in meat that are not existent in other foods.

By the same token there is nothing in any given type of food that is not present in another. You're being deliberately obtuse and using your own misunderstandings about biology as a basis for an argument. It is flawed from the start.


So Animal Farming being inefficient there is no need for it.(not for pleasure you said)Raising demand levels for meat lead also to deforestation...but I guess you don't care about that either.

You're embarrassing yourself. You go from a half-cocked moral argument to an even more ill thought out biological one and you've now landed in a last, desperate, attempt at an environmental one. Your first argument failed because there is no reason to give a rat's arse about animal rights, your second one failed because you don't understand biology and this one has failed because it relies on assumptions made in the first two arguments.

If you do reply, try to make a post that is more worthy of everyone's time.

[madcat]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2007 12:50 am
There is no point to keep arguing with you since you can forever deny scientific facts.

Look,I'm not the one who started insulting when you didn't have anything more to say.So I'm quoting myself.BTW did you forget that the topic is about Anthropocentrism vs Biocentrism.Biocentrism includes environment.
Now in my opinion it is really sad that you believe humanity is the center of existence and anything else is meaningless.
So lets stop this "debate" since none of us will convince the other one in his views,On the contrary,the more I try to convince you the more I'll alienate you.

BTW how old are you and what do you believe in? Marxism,Anarchism or?

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2007 01:26 am
Look,I'm not the one who started insulting when you didn't have anything more to say.
A) I never ran out of things to say
B) I was insulting you from the beginning.


So I'm quoting myself

First sign of madness and all that.


BTW did you forget that the topic is about Anthropocentrism vs Biocentrism.Biocentrism includes environment.

Yes, you are correct, what the flying fuck does that have to do with anything?


Now in my opinion

This is code for "disregard the following as it will be nothing but drivel with no evidence to back it up", am I close?


it is really sad that you believe humanity is the center of existence and anything else is meaningless.

Yep, I was right.


So lets stop this "debate" since none of us will convince the other one in his views,On the contrary,the more I try to convince you the more I'll alienate you.

That's possibly one of the more accurate things you've said.


BTW how old are you

None of your bussiness :P


and what do you believe in? Marxism,Anarchism or?

The red&black background on my avatar may give you a clue. Although I'm also a Transhumanist and a Technocrat to boot (I see no incongruity between these two things and my ideology).

[madcat]

Oh whatever.It appears you are just a troll who can't have a normal discussion.Is it really necessary to quote every my single word and sentence?

I never ran out of things to say

You see, thats the problem.You don't run out of things to say,only out of things that make sense.Read your comments again and you'll see.
I consider myself Transhumanist and Technocrat too,I'm a Marxist though.That probably the main reason why I'm biocentric,because it is based on materialist conception of the world.Not that long ago I was on your position too.I didn't give a shit about other life and hated vegetarians.Now do I care when an animal dies? Not really,but I don't much care when human dies too if this doesn't affect me and the society somehow.The whole thing of caring when someone dies is selfish by itself since it no longer matters for the person that is dead(please don't tell me you believe in souls and etc.),only for those who still live and bare the consequences.Now since Anthropocentrism leads to practices that are unsustainable and damaging to the environment that developed humans to what they are today and still need it is simply unnatural position and even worse, it is ideological and based on huge assumptions.Now if you ware a primitivist being Anthropocentric would make sense,but for a Technocrat...

O,BTW let me guess.You are 12yo?

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2007 04:46 pm
Oh whatever.It appears you are just a troll who can't have a normal discussion.Is it really necessary to quote every my single word and sentence?
Well, yes. Every single one is a work of pure genius.


You see, thats the problem.You don't run out of things to say,only out of things that make sense.Read your comments again and you'll see.

I'm not really an objective observer and nor are you, so we could argue until we're blue in the face about who is making sense. However I'd still put money on more people siding with me.


I consider myself Transhumanist and Technocrat too,I'm a Marxist though.That probably the main reason why I'm biocentric,because it is based on materialist conception of the world.

No it isn't. You have chosen to couch it in materialist terms but any concept of the world which doesn't recognise that, to humans, human material interests are the most important is nature-worshipping idealism.


Not that long ago I was on your position too.I didn't give a shit about other life and hated vegetarians.

I give a shit about the life that is useful to human interests and I don't have a problem with vegetarians.


Now do I care when an animal dies? Not really,but I don't much care when human dies too if this doesn't affect me and the society somehow.

Bollocks. The loss of any rational actor within a society affects it.


The whole thing of caring when someone dies is selfish by itself since it no longer matters for the person that is dead

It doesn't matter to the person but it has effects on people that have some relationship with that person - and, by several degrees of seperation, society itself.


(please don't tell me you believe in souls and etc.)

Why the fuck would I say that?!


only for those who still live and bare the consequences.

Yep, although I disagree with your use of "only".


Now since Anthropocentrism leads to practices that are unsustainable and damaging to the environment that developed humans

Most anthropocentric thought leads to environmentalism, moron.


to what they are today and still need it is simply unnatural position and even worse, it is ideological and based on huge assumptions.

Unlike biocentrism which is just commons sense, right? <_<


Now if you ware a primitivist being Anthropocentric would make sense,but for a Technocrat...

You have things arse backwards.


O,BTW let me guess.You are 12yo?

You&#39;re within seven years of the correct answer, so depending on how much accuracy you require that answer may be acceptable. Not that it makes a difference if I&#39;m one or one hundred.

[madcat]

The loss of any rational actor within a society affects it.

But Why only rational? Any change affects society.


Most anthropocentric thought leads to environmentalism, moron.
No it doesn&#39;t,It may in fact in theory,but in reality no.In reality thinking like yours is the reason for the ecological crisis and the extinction of so many species.Don&#39;t tell please that Speciesism is not ideological.You assume that the universe revolves around you.



Unlike biocentrism which is just commons sense, right?

It actually seems to be since I&#39;v never met any Anthropocentrist.People give a crap about nature and all life in it not because for their benefit but for its own sake.

It doesn&#39;t matter.History will decide.But I just don&#39;t see a post-revolutionary society as Anthropocentrist.It doesn&#39;t make any sense.Let me quote Leonardo da Vinci

Originally posted by Leonardo da Vinci

I have from an early age abjured the use of meat, and the time will come when men such as I will look upon the murder of animals as they now look upon the murder of men.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by madcat+October 17, 2007 07:52 pm--> (madcat @ October 17, 2007 07:52 pm)
The loss of any rational actor within a society affects it.

But Why only rational? Any change affects society. [/b]
That&#39;s not entirely true and you know it.


No it doesn&#39;t,It may in fact in theory,but in reality no.In reality thinking like yours is the reason for the ecological crisis and the extinction of so many species

No. the pursuit of profit above all else is what leads to that, antropocentrists recognise it is important to keep this planet inhabitable until we leave.


.Don&#39;t tell please that Speciesism is not ideological.You assume that the universe revolves around you.

Tell me more about what I think, I&#39;m genuinely curious. Speciesism isn&#39;t ideological, it&#39;s not materialist, it&#39;s not anything it&#39;s a stupid concept that people like you have made up as a result of anthropomorphising animals.

Also I&#39;d like to hear more about this "revolving universe" theory.


It actually seems to be since I&#39;v never met any Anthropocentrist.

What a bizarrely sheltered life you must lead.


People give a crap about nature and all life in it not because of their benefit but for its own sake.

You seem to make rather sweeping statements about what "people" think, which is arrogant. People think differently from one another and have different priorities.


It doesn&#39;t matter.History will decide.But I just don&#39;t see a post-revolutionary society as Anthropocentrist.

A revolution made by people, to emancipate people but without people at the centre? What the fuck have you been smoking?


Let me quote Leonardo da Vinci

By all means, but it&#39;s a somewhat irrelevant authority to appeal to. Although it is an unarguable fact he was a genius, not every single one of his opinions was correct and I daresay he would be the first to admit that perhaps his views on society could do with improvement (idiot savant that he was).


Leonardo da Vinci

I have from an early age abjured the use of meat, and the time will come when men such as I will look upon the murder of animals as they now look upon the murder of men.

Seems to have been a long time coming, his vegetarian utopia.

[Cult of Reason]

When Jazzratt enters the fray I feel unneeded. It is bliss.

However...


Now if you ware a primitivist being Anthropocentric would make sense,but for a Technocrat...

O M F G &#33; That is so... so... counterintuitively idiotic that it is almost beyond rational refute&#33; This stupidity that someone has had to work on... genius&#33;

[Lynx]

Jazzratt vs. Madcat
Its like Tom and Jerry in reverse

[madcat]

No. the pursuit of profit above all else is what leads to that, antropocentrists recognise it is important to keep this planet inhabitable until we leave.

Yes thats true,but I so much disagree with the "until we leave." part.Every life on earth has taken billions of years to evolve and develop, so by its nature it is priceless.Every diversity of life is priceless.Most likely(surely) there isn&#39;t anything like it anywhere in the universe,and to destroy it or don&#39;t care about it just doesn&#39;t seem right.Humans as every other living thing on the planet has come to existence from non-organic material,even a simple plant is an extremely complex chemical composition,let alone animal life.Now over a billion years has taken for simple microscopic and unicellular life to evolve to the complex life forms we see every day.And if we assume the history of evolution on our planet until now is 24h,humans have existed for only the last 2 seconds.So the evolution time that has taken us from the narrow minded animals to what we are now is extremely small at the background of the whole evolutionary process..And yet you are assuming that humans will be the only intelligent and worth saving thing that will ever come to existence from our planet.So humans are not the only product of our planet and environment that deserves to be saved.It may be the most important,but by far not the only one.


Speciesism isn&#39;t ideological, it&#39;s not materialist, it&#39;s not anything it&#39;s a stupid concept that people like you have made up as a result of anthropomorphising animals.

Not that long ago people ware saying the same thing about racism.


A revolution made by people, to emancipate people but without people at the centre? What the fuck have you been smoking?

You got it wrong.It was never people in the center.It was(at least in marxism) liberating the means of production.Peoples emancipation is just an effect.Now since anthropocentric practices cause a lot of social excess they have no place in a post revolutionary society.They don&#39;t need to be abolished,they&#39;ll just disappear.


Now there is something else.Why do you care ? I mean If you ware biocentric it matters to you,but since you are anthropocentric I just can&#39;t understand why do you care if people respect other life and etc.? Do you think that biocentrism will somehow slow human progress or what ?


You seem to make rather sweeping statements about what "people" think, which is arrogant. People think differently from one another and have different priorities.

That seems strange from someone who&#39;s avatar says "Fuck Your Opinion" ;)